Forums | MacLife

mo' ron wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Oh, I dunno. I'm very pleased at how clean it's been so far.

And personally I think the Britney/Paris shots were more amusing than anything else.

There's supposedly an ad somewhere blaming Obama for high gas prices.

You know, it wouldn't hurt him or the Dems who have control of Congress to actually take some action regarding energy.
Delaying any concrete action only makes it look like they want people to be hurt so they can blame Bush for election reasons and do not really have the peoples interests at heart.

mo' ron wrote:

Secondly, i'm not really certain what congress could do to help gas prices directly. Offshore drilling is merely a stop-gap for the larger issue of peak oil, and I don't think we should spend too much time on short-term measures. The longer term solution is to do what we did back in the kennedy days of the space-race, and dump lots of funding to research to bring about the alternative energy industry. AFAIK, both candidates support such measures. There's already lots of promising methods being research, these should be bolstered.

You do both, it's not brain surgery.

mo' ron wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

mo' ron wrote:

Secondly, i'm not really certain what congress could do to help gas prices directly. Offshore drilling is merely a stop-gap for the larger issue of peak oil, and I don't think we should spend too much time on short-term measures. The longer term solution is to do what we did back in the kennedy days of the space-race, and dump lots of funding to research to bring about the alternative energy industry. AFAIK, both candidates support such measures. There's already lots of promising methods being research, these should be bolstered.

You do both, it's not brain surgery.

Why risk environmental or ecological damage when you really don't have to?

You have some magical guarantee about when alternatives become viable large scale and a viable infrastructure to enable the switch?
You know that the alternatives also have environmental risks?
Exactly why is it necessary for there to be no additional oil available?

Farmerkev wrote:

mo' ron wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

You do both, it's not brain surgery.

Why risk environmental or ecological damage when you really don't have to?

You have some magical guarantee about when alternatives become viable large scale and a viable infrastructure to enable the switch?
You know that the alternatives also have environmental risks?
Exactly why is it necessary for there to be no additional oil available?

This is not a hot-button issue for me, but it's like the straw that breaks the camel's back. We can give an inch now WRT protecting the environment, then 10 years we can give another inch, and eventually we'll have no environment left. This may be absurd, but I don't want people living 100-200 years from now to lament the loss of natural habitats because we gave to many inches.

The price of gas is high, but it hasn't approached catastrophic levels yet (not where I live at least, I can't speak for the ultra-rural areas).

Grid powered hybrid cars are going to hit the mainstream market big time in 2010 which gives of a very needed level of abstraction between one of the biggest uses of fossil fuels and energy, which is going to further reduce the demand, and thus the price, of oil. There are enviornmental issues with batteries but they are far more manageable than environmental issues with oil.

Farmerkev wrote:

bratboy wrote:

Aren't there already a number of leases held by the oil companies that aren't being drilled on?

http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.o … about-ocs/

Interesting reading, but completely misleading. 

Fails to answer the biggest question out there, about the other 68 million acres of leases not producing hydrocarbons right now.

I don't know if I trust that source either but I've seen the same general talk in other places and it does ring true to me as a producer.
Another thing which isn't talked about is the vast majority of oil worldwide being under govt control.

AS far as increasing production, yes, I think we should be drilling everywhere viable including anwar and the coastal regions as well as investing money in alternate development.
Energy is too crucial to be playing politics with.

Freakout Jackson wrote:

McCain's a scumbag and his wife is a smurf.

She does come off as a now  snub 1980's cum receptacle.

Farmerkev wrote:

JakeTheTall wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.o … about-ocs/

Interesting reading, but completely misleading. 

Fails to answer the biggest question out there, about the other 68 million acres of leases not producing hydrocarbons right now.

Jake, some acres aren't worth planting. At these grain prices they became worth it. I can do it quickly if you understand there is up to a two year lag. It's worse in their industry.

But would you hold on to acres that won't support planting ?

And the biggest question:  did they even evaluate if those acres could be productive ?


Of course, I'm of the mind that the "problem" isn't expensive gasoline / oil; the problem is that gasoline / oil was too cheap for too long.  Why do so many Americans drive 5-50 miles a day in a 1-3 ton vehicle just to transport themselves (one 150-250 lbs human) and some small personal effects ?  Could they be any less energy efficient ?

JakeTheTall wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

JakeTheTall wrote:

Interesting reading, but completely misleading. 

Fails to answer the biggest question out there, about the other 68 million acres of leases not producing hydrocarbons right now.

Jake, some acres aren't worth planting. At these grain prices they became worth it. I can do it quickly if you understand there is up to a two year lag. It's worse in their industry.

But would you hold on to acres that won't support planting ?

And the biggest question:  did they even evaluate if those acres could be productive ?


Of course, I'm of the mind that the "problem" isn't expensive gasoline / oil; the problem is that gasoline / oil was too cheap for too long.  Why do so many Americans drive 5-50 miles a day in a 1-3 ton vehicle just to transport themselves (one 150-250 lbs human) and some small personal effects ?  Could they be any less energy efficient ?

Sometimes acres are a package deal Jake.
The current downward trend in usage has been interesting, nearly 10 billion miles less.
We used to hear about how inelastic gas was but maybe not as much as we've been led to believe.
People are finding ways to economize due to market conditions.

There may be lots of areas that have been sitting idle waiting to be drilled but that don't really have that much promise, and the holders of those rights know full well that they hold little promise but it was advantageous to have them on the books. Made the future prospects look good on paper.

:: quickly throws a towel over the General Electric ::

Hi, bubs! Er, long time no see....